Skip to main content
Glama
razvancanuci

Jira Issue MCP Server

by razvancanuci
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: create_issue handles issue creation, get_accessible_resources lists general resources, and get_projects focuses specifically on projects. There is no overlap or ambiguity between these functions.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    The naming is mostly consistent with a verb_noun pattern (create_issue, get_projects), but get_accessible_resources uses a more descriptive adjective, slightly deviating from pure verb_noun. Overall, it remains readable and predictable.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only 3 tools for a Jira server, the count feels too thin for the domain. Jira typically involves CRUD operations on issues, projects, and other resources, so this limited set is insufficient for comprehensive coverage.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool surface is significantly incomplete for a Jira server. It includes create_issue but lacks get_issue, update_issue, and delete_issue, and while get_projects is present, other common operations like search_issues or manage_workflows are missing, leading to potential agent failures.

  • Average 2.5/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored. Lowest: 1.7/5.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior1/5

    Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description only states 'Creates an issue' without explaining what happens after creation (e.g., issue ID returned, notifications sent), whether this requires specific permissions, rate limits, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with complex parameters, this is completely inadequate.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness2/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    While technically concise (three words), this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description fails to convey essential information about the tool's purpose and context. Every word should earn its place, but here the words provide almost no value beyond the tool name.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness1/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Given the complexity (7 parameters including nested ADF objects, no annotations, no output schema), the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what an 'issue' is in this context, what system creates it, what the expected outcome is, or how it relates to sibling tools. For a creation tool with rich input schema but no output schema, the description should provide crucial context that's missing.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters3/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly with descriptions, formats, enums, and constraints. The description adds zero parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in description.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose2/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description 'Creates an issue to the users' is vague and poorly worded. It restates the tool name ('create_issue') without specifying what kind of issue system this is (e.g., Jira, bug tracking), what 'to the users' means, or what resource is being created. It doesn't distinguish this from potential sibling tools beyond the obvious creation vs. retrieval distinction.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines1/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are sibling tools (get_accessible_resources, get_projects) that might be prerequisites or related operations, but the description doesn't mention them or explain the workflow. No context about prerequisites, dependencies, or appropriate scenarios is given.

    Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

  • Behavior2/5

    Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool fetches a list but doesn't describe what 'resources' entail, whether it's read-only, if there are rate limits, or what the output format is. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that accesses user data.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness5/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness2/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'resources' are, the return format, or any behavioral traits like permissions or limitations, which are crucial for a tool that accesses user-specific data.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters3/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    The schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameter 'userEmail' is fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining why this parameter is needed or how it affects the results, which aligns with the baseline score for high schema coverage.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose4/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description clearly states the action ('fetches') and resource ('list of resources the user has access to'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_projects' which might also retrieve resources, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines2/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_projects' or 'create_issue'. The description lacks context on prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.

    Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

  • Behavior2/5

    Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states a read operation ('Get') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions needed, pagination, rate limits, or what 'access' entails. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with required parameters.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness5/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, clearly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary details.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness2/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Given no annotations, no output schema, and a read operation with required parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, output format, and usage context, making it inadequate for an agent to fully understand how to invoke this tool correctly.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters3/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema documents both parameters fully. The description doesn't add meaning beyond the schema, as it doesn't explain why both 'userEmail' and 'resourceId' are required or how they relate to 'access'. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose4/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'projects', specifying scope with 'the user has access to'. It distinguishes from 'create_issue' (write vs read) but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_accessible_resources' (projects vs resources).

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines2/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_accessible_resources' is provided. The description implies usage for retrieving projects but doesn't mention prerequisites, constraints, or comparison with sibling tools.

    Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

jira-issue-mcp-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

jira-issue-mcp-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/razvancanuci/jira-issue-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server